SAN FRANCISCO / Ruling opens up police officers' personnel file

Criminal defendants who say they were framed or roughed up by police can get a judge to look at officers' personnel files for past complaints without having to first convince the judge that they're telling the truth, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The 5-2 ruling in a Los Angeles case broadly interprets a 1978 state law that allows defendants to support their cases by showing that an officer has acted improperly in similar circumstances.

The law, which adopted a 1974 ruling by the state's high court, requires police to produce records of incidents in an officer's past that were pertinent to the issues in the current case and might help establish a defense to the charges. The records are not turned over to the defense, but instead are given to the judge, who reviews them privately and then tells the defense lawyer how to contact those who filed relevant complaints or witnessed the incidents.

Police groups have fought to limit the disclosures, arguing that they may invade officers' privacy and invite fishing expeditions by the defense.

A dispute over the procedures arose two years ago in San Francisco when two officers who had been lawyers for the Police Department said the department was withholding personnel records that should have been turned over to judges.

In response, the department quickly announced changes in its disclosure policy that it said would make sure no records were missed. But last week, the two former department lawyers -- now-retired Sgt. Reno Rapagnani and his wife, Sgt. Leanna Dawydiak -- sued the city, saying the department punished them for their complaints by falsely accusing them of leaking a confidential memo.

The issue in Thursday's case was how much proof of police misconduct a defendant must provide to get a judge to look at police files.

Donald Warrick was arrested in April 2002 by Los Angeles police, who said he tossed 42 small rocks of cocaine onto the ground before running away as they approached. Warrick, found with a baggie and $2.75 in cash, denied possessing the drugs for sale and said he was there to buy cocaine, ran because he was on parole, and was framed by police.

When his lawyer sought records of past complaints of dishonesty against the arresting officers, a judge refused, saying Warrick's account was implausible and was not supported by any facts except his denial of guilt. The ruling was upheld by a state appeals court but overturned by the state Supreme Court, which said the standard used by the judge, and by several appeals courts in recent years, was too narrow.

Rather than having to convince the judge that his story was reasonably probable, Warrick was required only to present a scenario of police misconduct "that might or could have occurred" and was related to his planned defense, said Justice Joyce Kennard. She said Warrick's claim that police hadn't actually seen anyone drop the cocaine, and arrested him because he ran away, was plausible enough to justify a records search.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented, saying a defense claim that is technically possible should be rejected when it "runs counter to experience, nature, logic and reason."

Warrick's lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Mark Harvis, said the ruling should help the defense gather the information it needs to let a jury decide which side is telling the truth. He said Warrick, who had been in jail since his arrest, agreed to plead guilty to the cocaine charge this January in exchange for immediate release..